According to what they claim, the source code was undocumented, and they
had to work hard to make it into a "readable" pseudo-code.
It reminds me a time I had to "reverse engineer" a circuit diagram I got.
Took me hours just to understand what the machine does (and I had the
circuit diagrams).
--
Orr Dunkelman,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"If it wasn't for C, we'd be writing programs in BASI, PASAL, and OBOL", anon
Spammers: http://vipe.technion.ac.il/~orrd/spam.html
GPG fingerprint: C2D5 C6D6 9A24 9A95 C5B3 2023 6CAB 4A7C B73F D0AA
(This key will never sign Emails, only other PGP keys.)
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Ohad Lutzky wrote:
By the way, why would they have to _reverse engineer_ the kernel's
PRNG? Isn't it GPLd like the rest?
On 5/9/06, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:44:54AM +0300, Orr Dunkelman wrote:
> Nahum shalom,
>
> thanks for the information.
>
> However, next time, please consider sending us all the link instead the
> PDF.
>
Seems to have been published two monthes ago:
http://www.gutterman.net/blog/2006/03/new_paper_online_to_appear_in.html
(link from LinMagazine)
A copy of the paper:
http://eprint.iacr.org/2006/086.pdf
http://www.gutterman.net/publications/GuttermanPinkasReinman2006.pdf
A quick search did not provide any discussion of this up until Zvi
Gutterman's company published a press release on 1-May .
-- Tzafrir
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haifa Linux Club Mailing List (http://www.haifux.org)
To unsub send an empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To necessity... and beyond!
Ohad Lutzky
��h�������X�����m��!j'�Ɗ�N�����zwZ�驷)��Ơz�!j'���칻 �&ޅ���+
